Over on Andrew Sullivan there's been a series of posts on Adam and Eve, discussing whether "the fall" is literally true or not. To some, of course, it most certainly is. To others, it's just allegory, to explain sin and, I guess, evil. Among those who consider it allegorical, there seems to be no problem accepting that other parts of the Bible are more literally true. A road map, a set of instructions allowing divination of which is which, a secret decoder ring, is not provided.
As much as the next guy, I'm interested in challenging philosophical discussions (assuming the next guy is at least minimally grounded in relevance), but I'm finding it pretty amusing. Even for those arguing for allegory, there's a presumption of certain truths, particularly of god; which makes the rest of the argument sort of silly. Irrelevant, in fact. Given god, the rest is small stuff. It's like speculating what the tooth fairy does with all those teeth; or debating whether or not Santa lives year-round at the North Pole. (He doesn't: I see him at Macy's in the winter.)
The whole idea of describing man as inherently sinful, whether it's because of a literal Eve copping a literal apple or just because it's a necessary story line to keep the tithing aflow, controverts the very concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and loving god. Hell yes, humankind is imperfect as hell (put that in your intelligent design bong and puff on it), but the Christian theology to explain it is as full of holes as a grounded apple; yet on they argue, dancing on a pinhead. Theo-logy. The word is an internally self-canceling oxymoron. (As far as consistency goes, I'd argue that polytheism more closely explains what we observe: all those gods and godlets, arguing, sneaking around and causing chaos like Froggy the Gremlin.)
I admire Andrew Sullivan a lot. He's brilliant, blogoproductive to the point of obsession, a true conservative, openly gay, and devoted to the church that considers him an abomination. He's repelled by the current GOP, as any true conservative would be, has been hilariously committed to pointing out the absurdity of teabagger love for Sarah Palin. As any true conservative would be. But he's perfectly okay with the idea that, no matter the non-literality of Adam and Eve, man is inherently sinful and that Jesus died to save us from our bad selves.
Think about it: the perfect god, contemplating his options (I admit he only had a couple of days, but still...), decided to create man a sinner, over, you know, making him and her naturally joyful and productive. Or, for whatever reasons (I have my theories, and they have to do with extreme perversity and sadism) allowed (which, by all/all definition, means caused) them to become sinful and destined by default to eternal damnation, despite some sort of initial Edenic perfection. Then he sends his son (or himself in the form of his son, or something, a concept I've never quite got) to earth to save us all, by letting him be tortured to death. Except, being all-knowing, he knew from the get-go that the boy wouldn't die; that, therefore, it was an elaborate guilt-inducing hoax, following a deliberate (because he's all-powerful) poisoning of the pool. Tell me how it's not depravity.
Now, other than not believing a word of it, I can't say it didn't happen. (Well, yes, I can, and I do.) But if it did, whatever else is true it sure as hell does not bespeak the workings of a good guy; or a competent one, for that matter. So the arguing over literality, while a decent way to waste a little time and to rationalize the irrational, is a fool's errand. No matter what side they take in the specific argument over apple/non-apple, they're accepting as given a premise that is preposterous on its face; namely, that it's all part of some divine plan for redemption, orchestrated by a loving and infallible deity.
